Components are categorised, 'lifed' and tested to the point that teams know exactly how long each of the thousands of parts on an F1 car will last, and what condition they are in at all times. If one does not make it to its predicted life, the rigorous way its journey has been traced from manufacture to racing car enables them to highlight where the failures were....

But testing and 'lifing' parts to guarantee longevity while not compromising performance does not happen to anything like the same extent in sailing.

Components are categorised, 'lifed' and tested to the point that teams know exactly how long each of the thousands of parts on an F1 car will last, and what condition they are in at all times. If one does not make it to its predicted life, the rigorous way its journey has been traced from manufacture to racing car enables them to highlight where the failures were....

But testing and 'lifing' parts to guarantee longevity while not compromising performance does not happen to anything like the same extent in sailing.

?? True or False ??

To Qualify my statement...I dont Know.

however I strongly suspect that there is little actual testing performed until the particular boat hits the water, apart from some computer based FEA stuff perhaps. And thats only as good as the model it uses

I don´t know much about how designers currently use techniques used in F1 or other high-technology "industries" like aircraft or spacecraft engineering. And i don´t know how useful existing designing, digital prototyping and simulating tools could be for yacht designing, beyond the current uses. But i doubt that no one or only few would be using what is already available if it could help a lot. I guess it´s much more complex to simulate all the forces on a sail boat than in a F1 car.

And i have to disagree with the statement that people like sailing or F1 for the the technology-driven aspect. For me it´s the people, guys who skipper a yacht around the world, under heavy circumstances and not the newest technology which saved another 10kg. Same goes for F1, the technology, especially the tires are surely not what makes F1 interesting.

I think there's a fundamental difference between F1 and sailing boats when talking of testing for failure.

Often (especially at the high end), you can sail a boat so it will break. This is more true of a ocean going vessel than the AC, but the same general principles apply.

I doubt if you could break the structure of an F1 with acceleration, braking and cornering. It won't generally bust till you hit something (engines and drivetrain excluded).

Now.. if that difference needs to be removed, that's another matter.

Sure, you can test things like fatigue life etc etc.. but ultimately, the testing is only as useful as the assumptions used up front when designing the test about the loading and cycling involved.

I think a better analogy from F1 should be the designed safety. If a driver punts a car into a wall at top speed these days, chances are he'll survive. That wasn't the case 20 years ago. The AC cats need to go down that path - don't ask me how.

edited addendum:

F1 is now safe because of the right balance between the safety factor (driver's pod) and the performance potential of the cars. If they were able to do double the speed, then drivers would begin to die again. Maybe the AC cats need to ponder that performance/safety balance.

Part of the problem is the racing rules them selves. we are searching for that extra .01knot with next to no safety rules.. There is "generic" ISO, ABS etc etc but no one actually tests each product, or run of products.

We have an infinite amount of parts, boats, ideas etc etc. 75% should never be built. The Car industry has strict legislation when it comes to importing/selling Motor Vehicles for public use. You dont comply or too many accidents that Vehicle is shut down until it proves to be fit.

Joe Bloggs down the road can build a boat from pieces of 2 x 4 at home get it registered.

The artform, sadly, of building seaworthy yachts is in the past. By this I mean proper seaworthy boats. The rules have been bent to a point that things are at the edge of their limits, but no one tests these limits. Designers push to a level they are comfortable with, but human nature is always to just push that bit harder. Rules, ultimately, are there for a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I love high performance/big boat sailing but ISAF has no intentions of becoming the FIA because it doesn't relate to the Olympics. So where do we get the expertise and funding to implement such systems as the FIA or even relevant alternatives??

Too many failures for absolutely no reason. There can be "pushing the limits" within a secure/safe limit and still achieving revolutionary/ground breaking technology. Look at the Aero industry. They still manage to hold more passengers, reduce flight time, save fuel and make safer planes all with strict rules, generally time after time.

Patrizio Bertelli summed it up perfectly in an interview with La Stampa "We do not need to do the Cup after all…"

While some hero's might think we all know the risks and do it because we love the sport etc..... Yes we do it for the love, but we do it knowing the risk is calculated to a point, within an acceptable standard and we trust those who engineer/build the boats to get us back to the dock safely. We sure as hell don't go out there expecting not to come home, that is selfish, especially to those you leave behind.. Leave that for the Astronauts.

Taking it even further than that, they have looked at the increasing commercialisation of mountaineering and believe they can take sailing in the same way.

So where now people with minimal mountaineering experience but a taste for adventure can pay $60,000 (£39,000) to be taken up Mount Everest, Gascoyne wants to do the same for sailing.

"Look at all the blokes who go out and get towed up Everest by these guides now," Gascoyne says. "Well, if you can do that, how many people want to go out and do a race sailing two-handed with people like Brian Thompson and do a professional race as an amateur but don't know how to do it because they're not experienced enough?

"And what I want to do is say: 'If you want to do that you come and see MGI and we'll get you the boat, we get you the sailor to do the training for you and off you go - go and live the experience'."

I can't see how this could be done for boats. What is the expected life time of my keel bolts? They are 40 years old as of this month and AFAIK there has never been a failure in my type of boat - ever. So if they let go 5 years from now, was 45 years long enough or should it have been 50 or 100? Also note the LARGE gap between finding out their failure point and modifying the next boat built to compensate.

As for the very specialized billionaire dick-waving contest that is the AC, does anyone have the first clue what exactly the loads are on these boats and how long they are supposed to last? My impression is they are shooting for self-destruction 5 seconds after finishing the last race

Components are categorised, 'lifed' and tested to the point that teams know exactly how long each of the thousands of parts on an F1 car will last, and what condition they are in at all times. If one does not make it to its predicted life, the rigorous way its journey has been traced from manufacture to racing car enables them to highlight where the failures were....

But testing and 'lifing' parts to guarantee longevity while not compromising performance does not happen to anything like the same extent in sailing.

?? True or False ??

Sounds like mil-spec ing all parts. Great idea, but it's also the reason why the Air Force has to pay $600 for a hammer.

I would be very surprised if the AC cats didn't have pretty good testing for major parts and knew the Mean Time Between Failure for them, but it's important to remember that's a statistical mean, not an ironclad guarantee.

Components are categorised, 'lifed' and tested to the point that teams know exactly how long each of the thousands of parts on an F1 car will last, and what condition they are in at all times. If one does not make it to its predicted life, the rigorous way its journey has been traced from manufacture to racing car enables them to highlight where the failures were....

But testing and 'lifing' parts to guarantee longevity while not compromising performance does not happen to anything like the same extent in sailing.

?? True or False ??

Sounds like mil-spec ing all parts. Great idea, but it's also the reason why the Air Force has to pay $600 for a hammer.

I would be very surprised if the AC cats didn't have pretty good testing for major parts and knew the Mean Time Between Failure for them, but it's important to remember that's a statistical mean, not an ironclad guarantee.

FB- Doug

They do pretty extensive non-destructive testing of many of the parts as part of the maintenance schedule

Components are categorised, 'lifed' and tested to the point that teams know exactly how long each of the thousands of parts on an F1 car will last, and what condition they are in at all times. If one does not make it to its predicted life, the rigorous way its journey has been traced from manufacture to racing car enables them to highlight where the failures were....

But testing and 'lifing' parts to guarantee longevity while not compromising performance does not happen to anything like the same extent in sailing.

?? True or False ??

Sounds like mil-spec ing all parts. Great idea, but it's also the reason why the Air Force has to pay $600 for a hammer.

I would be very surprised if the AC cats didn't have pretty good testing for major parts and knew the Mean Time Between Failure for them, but it's important to remember that's a statistical mean, not an ironclad guarantee.

FB- Doug

But what are they testing against? Their own preconceived load/strain numbers? Each designer will have a slightly different FEA model and statistical evaluation with no checks/balances from the Governing body? (Which would be the FIA in motorsport)

And i think that is the way to go. They should have enough time to fix design and material issues before the race starts. I think we will see a much bigger fleet and that will make it much more interesting.

I hope that something amazing comes of this. It would be really neat to see an F1 team paired up with a sailing team, maybe (just maybe) it could prove to other companies in F1 (and other similar sports) that there is a market in sailing and there's a lot that can be shared between the disciplines.

Believe me, modelling an F1 car is harder than a yacht. You have design loads, shock loads, vibration, aero lads, buffeting, heat soak etc. Use the right tools and techniques, and modelling stresses isn't the issue...... Remember unlike aircraft, and less extent a yacht, F1 cars don't have any redundancy systems in the event of a failure, which is normally catastrophic in nature.....

You need to test and actually strain gauge yachts to understand the loads, which is totally possible, and I'm sure, Oracle have fed the knowledge of loads of the AC 90 into the AC 72 from a design stage. I don't think this is necessarily done to a high level in yachts, mainly due one-off nature of builds, and ability to fund it all.

The method of quality and proof testing parts, as well as laminate technology particularly composites, and composite/metal assemblies is where big gains can be made in yachting. An F1 team spends upwards of $70 million a year, and they would spend more in a year than say Southern Spars would in 3 years on composite technology, and non destructive testing.

With Mike Gascoyne ( and in a few years Red Bull's Adrian Newey) they will bring a different perspective on boat design, particularly integration of structures.

The routine testing and lifting of yacht components ( which isn't really common) isn't such an issue on production yachts which are generally over-specced and allow for minimal maintenance,but on a Grand Prix yacht where everything is minimised, it is imperative. This is where F1 systems will shine through.

Agree. Modelling anything that sits between two media is very difficult, whether boats or cars. F1 (and other motorsport) have had to build in safety margins. In the early sixties, lotus cars had a discipline of building a car that lasted just long enough to get around the circuit. They won a lot of races. And started an arms war that resulted in a lot of deaths. It took the drivers threatening a walkout before the owners started to listen and begin the safety cycle that we now see in F1, It wasn't a natural process; it took the courage of the persons whose asses were in the chair to cause the change. I would say that in some areas of sailing, such as Volvo and AC, we are in the 60s of F1. If history has a way of going around again, it is likely that we will see more pain before we see action being taken to address safety, through rules and better understanding of technology.

It's not the modeling of the component and working out how strong it is, pretty straightforward in many ways. The issue is the loads.....nobody knows what loads a yacht will experience until it is actually there, experiencing the loads....look at Safran in the Vendee Globe. Probably the closest thing to a yacht is a wind turbine, defining loads for a turbine is a multi person, full time job, with certification agencies looking over your shoulder all the time. And they still get it wrong, and this is a non moving, site specific calculation based on historical wind speeds, very different from a yacht traveling across an ocean.

If the rigid wing could magically telescope down to half or two thirds its height when transitioning to downwind I think that would be cool. Limiting the racing due to wind speed seems counter to pushing the technology limits. I like the concept of pushing the technology. Takes money and a drive to win. The ac has both. Sorry if this is slightly off topic.

Agree. Modelling anything that sits between two media is very difficult, whether boats or cars.

After maybe a century of describing the 'quality' of liquid-vapor in mechanical engineering, the only real progress has been interpolating the thermogoddamic tables into computereese ...

... Considering all those RTW boats that had mechanical failures, another 50% build material in all their failed parts put together would have added maybe 0.5% weight to the overall boat. For crissake, Artemis cracked the front beam in a tow test, and Oracle needs a brace to splash the hulls. WTF is up with that? It's beyond ridiculous, that the basic hull structure can't be flipped and dropped at random without failing, on any of those boats.

... Remember that video of a Hobie-33 being dropped into the water? ... If a V70 or an AC72 hull can't survive being dropped into the drink, fully rigged, from about half its waterline, it shouldn't be qualified to race on anything but a shallow backwater pond. That's the sea states they're going to encounter at their sailing velocities. Most of the endo'd AC45 boats sailed away when righted. The Moths, A18s, and C-Cats survive everything YouTube can imagine. Should anything less be reasonable for bigger (better, more prestigious) racing boats?

... Okay, maybe that's a little harsh, and maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy who cringes every time his aging J24 or his friends' J/10X drops off a 5-10ft backless wave on a moonless night, but the reality check on "seaworthy" needs to slap some people upside the head. If the mast and rigging won't survive a 360 roll, pitchpole, or cartwheel, that's not so bad for a race boat, most cruisers wouldn't either. But when keels break-off or beams collapse, that's just flat inexcusible.

... I'm not saying they boats need to be dropped from 10,000ft to make sure they splash at terminal velocity for a dozen-tons of lead with only a dozen-sqmtr of aero-drag. That would be too much to reasonably expect. Here's the bottom line, though: If their hulls and keel(s) can't handle random entry angles to the wet stuff at their design velocity, then they've got no business being offshore, or arguably, blitzing around SF Bay with an unreefable sailplan ...

I don't think it is insurmountable to model the loads on a yacht. Obviously you need to strain gauge an existing boat to feed base numbers into a program, then refine it from there.....

Load prediction program's do exist, but yacht designers just on't have the financial resources to do it. Some one ill spend $5million on a Grand Prix yacht, and $200,000 plus on a new set of rags, but try telling them to spend that much on stress analysis... No chance.

Try convincing a spar manufacturer to destruction test a top dollar mast, no way, because although some race mega dollar boats, there aren't many suppliers with that amount if cash. The fact that boats like Pindar can break a stick on the maiden sail in moderate winds, shows that there is something fundamentally lacking in the grand scheme of things, starting with quality control of parts, or in the human systems in installation. In F1, even though outside vendors supply to ISO 9000 standard, they proof test quite a lot prior to putting them on the car, then religiously do it cyclically.

My thoughts are once say a VO 70 has gone round the plant, by right the mast, rigging', keel assembly, rudders etc should be crack or x-ray tested, and if in doubt replaced, and yes I know how much a carbon mast costs......

As for Artemis, I'm only speculating, but if the boat wasn't initially designed to foil, the loads on it aren't what was originally allowed for, and the structure might not be up to it for a sustained period, especially if one float pitches down and digs in, at those much higher speeds when aloft. In the last decade at least, there have been great advances in sailing craft, but the systems to ensure longevity have lagged behind some what....

I hope that something amazing comes of this. It would be really neat to see an F1 team paired up with a sailing team, maybe (just maybe) it could prove to other companies in F1 (and other similar sports) that there is a market in sailing and there's a lot that can be shared between the disciplines.

Can't wait to see what comes of it in the next year or two.

+ 100!

This could be very exciting and great for the sport. We don't need any more fatalities in the AC....

Taking it even further than that, they have looked at the increasing commercialisation of mountaineering and believe they can take sailing in the same way.

So where now people with minimal mountaineering experience but a taste for adventure can pay $60,000 (£39,000) to be taken up Mount Everest, Gascoyne wants to do the same for sailing.

"Look at all the blokes who go out and get towed up Everest by these guides now," Gascoyne says. "Well, if you can do that, how many people want to go out and do a race sailing two-handed with people like Brian Thompson and do a professional race as an amateur but don't know how to do it because they're not experienced enough?

"And what I want to do is say: 'If you want to do that you come and see MGI and we'll get you the boat, we get you the sailor to do the training for you and off you go - go and live the experience'."

Interesting concept.

Except the analogy is somewhat flawed. Yes you can pay big bucks to climb Everest without being a vastly experienced mountaineer but no one 'tows' you up there. You are guided by experienced Guides and Sherpa's assist with much of the logistics but the only way you are going to get to the summit is by training very hard beforehand, trek 7 days to Base camp, live there for a few weeks to get used to altitude, do 2-3 acclimatization climbs up and down to camp 3 (7500mts) over a period of weeks and then on the final push to the summit, put one foot in front of the other. Many of them can’t make it despite the drugs they use these days. Climbing for 20 hours at the same altitudes that jets fly at is something not all people can do. Any fat rich fucker can sit on a yacht. And on Everest even if you have prepared well you still have about a one in 40 chance of dying. And that is only 1/2 the battle as most climbers that die do so on the way back down. All reputable guiding companies on the Mountain require climbers to have climbed a 6-8000 metre peak before your Everest Adventure. You have to be very fit to even get to camp 1 through the Ice fall. Yes there are some dodgy ones that will take your money without doing any of this, but their 'clients' never make the summit and many are amongst the 120 odd bodies still up there. On one of these 'extreme' sailing adventures if you want to 'give up' you could conceivably just lie in your bunk and the 'Guide' can sail the boat somewhere safe by himself. If you do the same on Everest (particularly in the 'Death Zone' over 8000 meters) you WILL die. Every time. I have got no problem with rich dudes paying Pro's to take them places they couldn't go otherwise. It has been going on for years. These people are known in

the racing world as 'Owners'. Not all of them or even many of them. But there are plenty of them. No different from the Global challenge type races in many ways. But the Everest analogy is wrong. You can't just slap the cash down and climb to the top of it.

Components are categorised, 'lifed' and tested to the point that teams know exactly how long each of the thousands of parts on an F1 car will last, and what condition they are in at all times.....

Sounds like mil-spec ing all parts. Great idea, but it's also the reason why the Air Force has to pay $600 for a hammer.

I would be very surprised if the AC cats didn't have pretty good testing for major parts and knew the Mean Time Between Failure for them, but it's important to remember that's a statistical mean, not an ironclad guarantee.

FB- Doug

But what are they testing against? Their own preconceived load/strain numbers? Each designer will have a slightly different FEA model and statistical evaluation with no checks/balances from the Governing body? (Which would be the FIA in motorsport)

What -should- they have? Remember that Big Brother is not watching the America's Cup, it is outside all other sports governing bodies. Structural requirements would come from the class rules.

There's a 2nd piece of the puzzle here and that is unlike metal, laminated composites are not a developed and mature technology. There isn't currently any math that I know of to say, "here is lamination ABC and its strength is precisely X" or conversely to say "we need a laminated of precisely strength Y, here is exactly what to make it out of and how to make it." Engineers are getting there, thanks almost entirely to the various military efforts.

I don't agree with composites not being a mature technology, it has been used in aerospace and motorsports for 30 years......
In F1, it's matured enough to allow for increasingly stringent crash test loadings, while getting incrimentally lighter each year.

There is plent of maths out there, all the big composite suppliers can provide info, but only generic, not unique to each application. Beam, point, shear loads all have to be considered for optimal results. Sure you can trot out a standard layup schedule, but it would be heavier than required, negating the point of using the stuff in the first place....

Thoroughbred, and fragile cats lik the AC72's are in their infancy. You would think next cycle that minimum build standards and specs will be introduced, so everyone carries the same penalty.

As for the very specialized billionaire dick-waving contest that is the AC, does anyone have the first clue what exactly the loads are on these boats and how long they are supposed to last? My impression is they are shooting for self-destruction 5 seconds after finishing the last race

I agree. The AC is a Dick Waving Contest as it has always been. LE has done nothing to make it F1 like and more Teleceptable.

If he really wanted it to be something, he would have used a High Performance 50ish box rule mono's and Race in Fremantle where the best AC sailing has ever (imho) been. There would be 20 to 30 teams and it would be an awesome event. But the mega rich don't want want that, do you Larry?

Instead we have a 1 on 1 race where you are supposed to control your oppenent and you are in a boat you can barely control.

To the best of my knowledge they still race under Match Racing Rules in the AC, so it is a match race. They are just using huge cats that only bizzilionaires can afford and people get killed when the crash.

PS: they still go relatively slow by todays standards, so it is not anything that people who do not sail will watch.

Dawg, that post shows that you don't get the Cup. The racing was in Fremantle because the Aussies held the Cup. It's laughable to think a defender would ever choose to sail outside their home waters. As for the number of teams, the 12m boats had so many teams in 87 because the class had been in place since '58. In '58 there was one challenger (Sceptre) and three or four defenders, one of which was pre-war.

Looking back over the history of the Cup and how it got its start, this cycle and the DoG match are much more in the original spirit. Whether someone likes the spirit of the Cup is another matter entirely.

Also, they developed their own rules based on the RRS to handle the unique aspects of the AC72s.

I don't agree with composites not being a mature technology, it has been used in aerospace and motorsports for 30 years......
In F1, it's matured enough to allow for increasingly stringent crash test loadings, while getting incrimentally lighter each year.

There is plent of maths out there, all the big composite suppliers can provide info, but only generic, not unique to each application. Beam, point, shear loads all have to be considered for optimal results. Sure you can trot out a standard layup schedule, but it would be heavier than required, negating the point of using the stuff in the first place....

Thoroughbred, and fragile cats lik the AC72's are in their infancy. You would think next cycle that minimum build standards and specs will be introduced, so everyone carries the same penalty.

What Doug says is correct, there are no actual rules which predict composite failure over the full range of stress conditions.

There are several competing theories, most of which work OK for individual laminae, but not so well for laminates, and very little available for woven materials.

For aero the approach is to work with a sufficient factor of safety and to use a statistically bases criteria for the maximum stress allowable (A or B basis criteria).

Typically sailing(inshore) boats have pushed the limits much further than aero, because the cost of failure is lower i.e. if it breaks you get wet and the rescue boat picks you up).

the new AC boats are changing that, and as a result the requirements should now be changing.

Speaking of original spirit, when New Zealand started the whole ongoing mongolian cluster I could not stop laughing at the idea that they could *out-lawyer* the USA

OMFG that was a bad idea. The one thing that the USA is - by FAR - the best at in the entire world is lawyers. I do agree all the latest shenanigans are in keeping with the deed, but that doesn't mean I like them. I really liked the 12 meters and not much since then. If I were God of the AC, they would be racing J class boats, the boats would have to be built in the country they are racing for, and sailed from there to the race. Also there would be things like teak decks and full luxury interiors required. Every boat would have to carry an old rich guy that talks like Thurston Howell to talk to the race committee. Lovey would organize decor below.

Seriously - really - would you rather see 2 J Class boats finishing under spinnakers big enough to have their own zip codes running neck-and-neck for the finish with a bone in their teeth or one cat going 50 knots a mile ahead of the one going 45?

Dawg, that post shows that you don't get the Cup. The racing was in Fremantle because the Aussies held the Cup. It's laughable to think a defender would ever choose to sail outside their home waters. As for the number of teams, the 12m boats had so many teams in 87 because the class had been in place since '58. In '58 there was one challenger (Sceptre) and three or four defenders, one of which was pre-war.

Looking back over the history of the Cup and how it got its start, this cycle and the DoG match are much more in the original spirit. Whether someone likes the spirit of the Cup is another matter entirely.

Also, they developed their own rules based on the RRS to handle the unique aspects of the AC72s.

I don't agree with composites not being a mature technology, it has been used in aerospace and motorsports for 30 years......
In F1, it's matured enough to allow for increasingly stringent crash test loadings, while getting incrimentally lighter each year.

Masonry and wood engineering has been in use... and subject to math by the cleverest people in the field... since the Chinese and Greek builders. Say around 2500 years. Metal structural engineering has been around since the Hittites, but has only been subject to math for about the last 1500 years. Composite laminates have been around for less than 100 years total, and while they have been subject to some incredibly clever analysis; it's a very complex subject.

There is plent of maths out there, all the big composite suppliers can provide info, but only generic, not unique to each application. Beam, point, shear loads all have to be considered for optimal results. Sure you can trot out a standard layup schedule, but it would be heavier than required, negating the point of using the stuff in the first place....

Thoroughbred, and fragile cats lik the AC72's are in their infancy. You would think next cycle that minimum build standards and specs will be introduced, so everyone carries the same penalty.

Agreed. I would have thought they'd trot out scantlings & specs as part of the class rule already, but maybe they see "building stronger lighter" as part of the competitive arena.

What Doug says is correct, there are no actual rules which predict composite failure over the full range of stress conditions.

There are several competing theories, most of which work OK for individual laminae, but not so well for laminates, and very little available for woven materials.

Right, thanks JMB. I can see & agree with BP's point that we know a heck of a lot about laminate engineering, there's no general model. The beauty of computers is that you can do hella math working both ends toward the middle and come up with a fairly narrow window of answers; then the real trick is to build it exactly as spec'd.

For aero the approach is to work with a sufficient factor of safety and to use a statistically bases criteria for the maximum stress allowable (A or B basis criteria).

Typically sailing(inshore) boats have pushed the limits much further than aero, because the cost of failure is lower i.e. if it breaks you get wet and the rescue boat picks you up).

the new AC boats are changing that, and as a result the requirements should now be changing.

..

What hurts the most is, they knew this was possible or they would not have taken the protective measures that were already in place. But it was nowhere near sufficient for >50 kt impacts.

One answer might be that instead of scantling requirements, that the whole AC72 class buy main beams from a single impartial builder, or to have the class authority test all the main structural components. THe point was made earlier that nobody knows exactly how much load+stress the structures are subject to while sailing.

Speaking of original spirit, when New Zealand started the whole ongoing mongolian cluster I could not stop laughing at the idea that they could *out-lawyer* the USA OMFG that was a bad idea. The one thing that the USA is - by FAR - the best at in the entire world is lawyers. I do agree all the latest shenanigans are in keeping with the deed, but that doesn't mean I like them. I really liked the 12 meters and not much since then. If I were God of the AC, they would be racing J class boats, the boats would have to be built in the country they are racing for, and sailed from there to the race. Also there would be things like teak decks and full luxury interiors required. Every boat would have to carry an old rich guy that talks like Thurston Howell to talk to the race committee. Lovey would organize decor below.

Seriously - really - would you rather see 2 J Class boats finishing under spinnakers big enough to have their own zip codes running neck-and-neck for the finish with a bone in their teeth or one cat going 50 knots a mile ahead of the one going 45?

Dawg, that post shows that you don't get the Cup. The racing was in Fremantle because the Aussies held the Cup. It's laughable to think a defender would ever choose to sail outside their home waters. As for the number of teams, the 12m boats had so many teams in 87 because the class had been in place since '58. In '58 there was one challenger (Sceptre) and three or four defenders, one of which was pre-war.

Looking back over the history of the Cup and how it got its start, this cycle and the DoG match are much more in the original spirit. Whether someone likes the spirit of the Cup is another matter entirely.

Also, they developed their own rules based on the RRS to handle the unique aspects of the AC72s.

That is a race I'd paid to see, but I say we go even further back. Wouldn't it be awesome to see what the likes of R/P, J/V and Mills could come up with under the Seawanhaka 90 foot rule. Reliance would look like a toy.

What hurts the most is, they knew this was possible or they would not have taken the protective measures that were already in place. But it was nowhere near sufficient for >50 kt impacts.

One answer might be that instead of scantling requirements, that the whole AC72 class buy main beams from a single impartial builder, or to have the class authority test all the main structural components. THe point was made earlier that nobody knows exactly how much load+stress the structures are subject to while sailing.

FB- Doug

for materials specification there are some good models in the General Aviation field.

By clubbing together a group of small aircraft manufacturers where able to test materials at much lower costs.

For the FAA its not enough to just qualify the material, you have to qualify the whole manufacturing process.

However rather than worry about the structural components and their ability to handle the (unknown) loads, I think this is where the F1 model can truly come into play, as AC (and other high load classes) develop they need to consider the types of failure they expect and ensure that the sailors are properly protected when the failure occur. This requires a change of thinking from trying to design to prevent the failures.

Some key examples from F1 include the protective kevlar layers required around the tub to limit penetration of sharp parts into the driver compartment.

In AC this may mean that if for example a main beam fails there are requirements to ensure that it doesn't send splinters out at high speed, maybe even systems to ensure that if the beams fail this unloads the sails in a safe manner....

One of the big diffs between F1 and Sailing is that while there is a physical aspect of F1, the power isn't being generated by bodies. In sailing it is. that means that the crew are doing thing that make it hard to protect them inside of a pod. sure on DogZilla you could have put Jimmy inside of a race pod in the bow of the thing, and a trimmer for the headsail in each hull and a main wing trimmmer in the main hull and powered it all by engine the way an F1 is powered.

But the AC72s and the tradition of sailboat racing has always been one of more mechanical work by individuals. And this brings risk. And not just to the AC. Low Speed Chase, as well as the sad case of the young man who drowned in the 18' skiff training in Hawaii come to mind. And there have been more than a few of us who have found ourselves snagged in ropes in a capsize of a dinghy. And I've had friends sailing offshore singlehanded who barely made it back on their boat after falling overboard.

Sailing then is more akin to skiing, where Sunny Bono was killed in an accident "on slope" when he lost control and hit a tree (course/inshore/bouy racing) or backcountry skiing (5 killed in an avalanche at the Stevens Pass ski area last season). In fact more people are killed annually skiing at Val d'Isere than were killed in all the sailing in SFO area in the last year.

So while I see the F1 merger with sailing - particularly with Volvo - as a big plus, I don't see it taking away the inherent risk of the sport anymore than modern skis and "avalanche wings" take away the inherent risk of skiing

From all accounts, the victim was not smashed to a pulp - he was tangled up and drowned

This exact same thing happened to a 14 year old girl at SSA (Severn River) in a 420. So not breaking the boats is not going to eliminate this risk unless you make them also not capsize nor pitchpole. Can anyone recall a capsized 12 Meter? Though not

From all accounts, the victim was not smashed to a pulp - he was tangled up and drowned

This exact same thing happened to a 14 year old girl at SSA (Severn River) in a 420. So not breaking the boats is not going to eliminate this risk unless you make them also not capsize nor pitchpole. Can anyone recall a capsized 12 Meter? Though not

There were a couple of reports, including one from someone on a rescue RIB, that Bart's helmet was 'wrecked', and that there was blunt force trauma...more questions than answers still...

From all accounts, the victim was not smashed to a pulp - he was tangled up and drowned

This exact same thing happened to a 14 year old girl at SSA (Severn River) in a 420. So not breaking the boats is not going to eliminate this risk unless you make them also not capsize nor pitchpole. Can anyone recall a capsized 12 Meter? Though not

There were a couple of reports, including one from someone on a rescue RIB, that Bart's helmet was 'wrecked', and that there was blunt force trauma...more questions than answers still...

That's four times you have "not commented " on the condition of Bart's helmet....

Care to comment on your snide post to me that a kayak helmet protected you so it should be alright for a sailboat race, a couple of weeks ago when I said that millions of dollars had been spent on motoracing helmets and that technology should be used in the AC.....

Dawg, that post shows that you don't get the Cup. The racing was in Fremantle because the Aussies held the Cup. It's laughable to think a defender would ever choose to sail outside their home waters. As for the number of teams, the 12m boats had so many teams in 87 because the class had been in place since '58. In '58 there was one challenger (Sceptre) and three or four defenders, one of which was pre-war.

Looking back over the history of the Cup and how it got its start, this cycle and the DoG match are much more in the original spirit. Whether someone likes the spirit of the Cup is another matter entirely.

Also, they developed their own rules based on the RRS to handle the unique aspects of the AC72s.

It shows that you did not understand my post.

LE wants to bring the AC into the Tele Age.

Well when I look at any type of racing on the Tele, I see lots of people. Not 3 or 5 teams of rich white dudes. I see Multi National, Multi Colored and all sexes represented.

Get your head out of your ass you fucking dip shit. (sounds like the foul mouthed Editor..eh)

Larry Ellison and Russell Couts are probably the worst thing that has happened to sailing in the last 20 years.

IMHO

PS. I have been racing sailboats (mono, multi and windsurfer) for 30 years now. I did 3 years of Match Racing and in 1979 made it to the Prince of Wales finals with Dave Klatt and John Broome.
Our Esteemed editor only joined us at the last minute when John could not make it to the finals. Never break up a team.

Of course then I got hurt......the rest is history.

so kiss my disabled ass......BEEN THERE DONE THAT........probably done 100% more than you will ever do.

Dawg, I'd disagree with you. Take a look at say the FreeRide World Tour http://www.freerideworldtour.com/ Its hardly multi-ethnic or Multi-colored. the PGA tour was similar for a long long time. And yet advertising prices on Golf Shows are higher than on NASCAR shows... Hmmm.

Dawg, I'd disagree with you. Take a look at say the FreeRide World Tour http://www.freerideworldtour.com/ Its hardly multi-ethnic or Multi-colored. the PGA tour was similar for a long long time. And yet advertising prices on Golf Shows are higher than on NASCAR shows... Hmmm.

First let me apoligize for my language and temper lose in my last post.

Second, your world free ride tour looks to be kiddies.

the PGA has always been white.

I was relating to Racing events where people spend big money.

And how they want it to be more F1 like.

The F1 does not change the person in charge after they win the World Championship. This is an inherent problem for the AC.

There will always be someone fucking with it instead of making it into a true World Class Event.

From all accounts, the victim was not smashed to a pulp - he was tangled up and drowned

This exact same thing happened to a 14 year old girl at SSA (Severn River) in a 420. So not breaking the boats is not going to eliminate this risk unless you make them also not capsize nor pitchpole. Can anyone recall a capsized 12 Meter? Though not

There were a couple of reports, including one from someone on a rescue RIB, that Bart's helmet was 'wrecked', and that there was blunt force trauma...more questions than answers still...

That's four times you have "not commented " on the condition of Bart's helmet....

Care to comment on your snide post to me that a kayak helmet protected you so it should be alright for a sailboat race, a couple of weeks ago when I said that millions of dollars had been spent on motoracing helmets and that technology should be used in the AC.....